The Refried Presidency: Trump Hateful Machine/Fossil Fuel Boogaloo or Whatever Continuation

I disagree, on two levels. Firstly--I don't think this is literally true. I just reviewed Section 2 of the Constitution, and I don't see any variation of advocating for their state mentioned at all. (I'm not being sarcastic--I did double-check to see if you had a technically correct point even though I reject the premise out of hand). I believe they are chosen by their State to represent their collective voice in the national government, and to fulfill several legislative functions.

Secondly, and more importantly, any reading of a constitutional duty which lends tacit approval to nationally harmful--catastrophic, in this case--actions is not sustainable. A political order which regards self-sabotage as 'constitutional' cannot endure.

On this, we agree. I just don't think her actions represent this principle in action.

 

How is what I said different from what you said?

We do not have 100 at large senators and 435 at large congressmen. They are chosen to represent the people of a specific area. If Murkowski can get more for her constituents in Alaska, that is what she is supposed to do.

Sure. Every Republican is guilty at this point. The issue is how are we going to pick up the pieces once Trump passes on.

 

Fair question--for starters, what you highlighted was in context of the rest of my post.

You said that her job is to advocate for her state. But that's not what the institution was set up to do--they represent their state within the national government, which is not the same thing as showing up as, primarily, advocates for their state. Their primary functions are as part of the national government. Representing the state is not the same thing as primarily advocating for it's interests.

We most certainly do. Senators are chosen from their entire state. You're turning the principle of federalism into a national government of spoils-dividing.

(I realize you meant "at-large" at the national level, but if we're going to argue what Senators are "supposed" to do we need to start with how and why the institution was created in the first place).

As I said--not only does the Constitution at no point state that their role is to get more for their own state at the expense of the Republic as a whole, I believe a constitutional order which sanctifies knowingly harming the Republic at large in exchange for special treatment for your own state is unsustainable and not worth keeping.

I mean--I get your larger point, I just think you've picked a really bad example. There are ways to bring local perspectives to national politics without a zero-sum (at best) approach like she took. Voting for a bill which you KNOW will hurt the country at large is not, IMHO, effective advocacy for your constituents. It's just scavenging as a means of political self-preservation.

Speaking of the Constitution, Section 8 of Article II--the one detailing the powers and duties of Congress--kicks off with this opening:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

I'm not sure how one goes from that to "It's her job to ******** over the rest of the USA to benefit of her 700,000 constituents."

Trump is leading them into deep unpopularity, so IMHO we need to make sure that they're not allowed to memory-hole their role in Trump's regime.

 

Nah.

Starting with the Constitution is good. But let's call it the job description. You haven't ever had a job that had you doing more than what was on your job description? Or, if your job description needed amending, it was just a supervisor adding a bullet point into a Word doc. Despite the promise that the Constitution is a "living" document, nothing's ever been changed about the role of Senator. The Founders couldn't imagine how big government was going to get, the scope of the moneys going in and out. (Just like they couldn't fathom that it would be woman who be representing their state.)

The Founders also didn't address just how people -- who were not a part of close, largely wealthy, relatively incestuous communities -- were supposed to get elected. Government distributes boatloads of money every year. Who else is going to be looking out for the citizens of the state of Alaska vis a vis this largesse if not for their elected representatives?

I think it's the nakedness of this money grab that makes it look worse than it really is. For bills to be passed, horses have to be traded, arms have to be twisted. It certainly was when the Constitution was written. For all we know, Murkowski had already decided to vote for this bill and she just used her leverage to extract more for her state. I don't know how many people are going to get elected if they were to champion their refusal to advocated for their state.